Pastor Creflow Dollar is asking for 60 million to purchase new G6 to spread the gospel across the gl

[blastercombo]

Can you give me an example of two or more translations that are significantly different?

Jesus isn't even the dudes name

 

[girlthatsblanco]

Jesus isn't even the dudes name

Explain

 

[wr]

A big misconception is that the bible is a single book. The text represents an entire libraries or "bibliotech" worth of knowledge. There is conquest and colonization that we know happened in history. So how cam we expect the body of work to remain pure? Man has had his hand in the bible that we are given. What do people think the dead sea scrolls are? Nag Hamadi codex? Missing books? A 100 % translation is impossible when enlgish doesn't have the same counterparts and esoteric numerical value and gender and character symbols as Hebrew Aramaic etc. You have to expect some kind of changes. Or is this where the faith part comes in for you guys? Believing amidst all the evidence of man's tampering with the word?

 

[Jordan8]

One famous translation is the first verse. Original texts say "In the beginning Elohim, created the heavens and the earth"

Elohim means Gods plural. It was later translated to just God. Also might explain why later it says "Let us make mankind in OUR image, in OUR likeness,"

 

[girlthatsblanco]

One famous translation is the first verse. Original texts say "In the beginning Elohim, created the heavens and the earth"

Elohim means Gods plural. It was later translated to just God. Also might explain why later it says "Let us make mankind in OUR image, in OUR likeness,"

And...

 

[wr]

You dont seem like you are interested in learning something new. Maybe you prefer to hear something that confirms what you already believe...

 

[Jordan8]

And...

And... the Bible didnt waste time showing how its full of contradictions and misunderstandings of previously written texts by the fact it magically converted from a polytheistic religious book to a monotheistic book with just a translation of one word on the very first verse on the very first page of the "Holy" Book.

 

[doublemesh96]

You dont seem like you are interested in learning something new. Maybe you prefer to hear something that confirms what you already believe...

This is the religious mindset. They believe with such conviction that they're not willing to entertain any other possibilities no matter how much evidence or information is provided. Logic is not a part of their program. Blind faith is the bases of the doctrine.

 

[girlthatsblanco]

And... the Bible didnt waste time showing how its full of contradictions and misunderstandings of previously written texts by the fact it magically converted from a polytheistic religious book to a monotheistic book with just a translation of one word on the very first verse on the very first page of the "Holy" Book.

The Bible has never had polytheistic God. It seems you have a misunderstanding of what is referred to as The Trinity. I can explain it if you like or you can research it yourself, but in no shape or form was the Bible ever polytheistic so your claim is not accurate.

 

[girlthatsblanco]

This is the religious mindset. They believe with such conviction that they're not willing to entertain any other possibilities no matter how much evidence or information is provided. Logic is not a part of their program. Blind faith is the bases of the doctrine.

Thats goes both ways man.

 

[wr]

The Bible has never had polytheistic God. It seems you have a misunderstanding of what is referred to as The Trinity. I can explain it if you like or you can research it yourself, but in no shape or form was the Bible ever polytheistic so your claim is not accurate.

You are wrong.

There are differences between the lord and LORD in the bible and it is even in some annotations notes. Sometimes the lord being referenced could be a local "land lord" or a despot.

Missing this theme allows people to continue with the myth that the God of the Bible was cruel and vindictive when the reference could have simply been to another human.

 

[doublemesh96]

Thats goes both ways man.

True a lot of atheist/agnostics think they know the way as well. My point is it's a mistake to shut yourself down to information and understanding in any way. That's the actual definition of religion from it's Latin etymology, to tie back,To thwart from

 

[jape]

I despise organised religion and their hierarchy more than anything else in this world...

I despise ignorance more than Anything in the world.
To base your judgement on organized religion because of people like this is just dumb.

 

[girlthatsblanco]

You are wrong.

There are differences between the lord and LORD in the bible and it is even in some annotations notes. Sometimes the lord being referenced could be a local "land lord" or a despot.

Missing this theme allows people to continue with the myth that the God of the Bible was cruel and vindictive when the reference could have simply been to another human.

This has nothing to do with my statement of a monotheistic God. And the Bible doesn't teach that God is cruel or vindictive. And you didn't even explain why LORD is used.

 

[Jordan8]

The Bible has never had polytheistic God. It seems you have a misunderstanding of what is referred to as The Trinity. I can explain it if you like or you can research it yourself, but in no shape or form was the Bible ever polytheistic so your claim is not accurate.

I dont know what you mean.

The verse i referenced is in Genesis. Before God even created Adam. Jesus didnt come til a couple thousand years later.

Sin wasnt even "created" yet so God wouldnt need to come down as a human so there was no Trinity yet.

So who was the "our" and "us" referenced in the creation story and who were the plural Gods in the first verse?

 

[wr]

Because we were talking about a polytheistic God. And the LORD refers to the LORD God in the bible. Those other lords could be kings, demons or kings using demons. Did you know King James also wrote a bible on demonology as well?

 

[girlthatsblanco]

True a lot of atheist/agnostics think they know the way as well. My point is it's a mistake to shut yourself down to information and understanding in any way. That's the actual definition of religion from it's Latin etymology, to tie back,To thwart from

I speak only for myself when I say this. I'm a follower of Jesus Christ and he is who I put my faith in, but I am more than willing to listen to others opinions or evidence against what I believe. My issue is time and time again people make claims and statements about the Bible and what they think I believe and treat it like it is truth. It has happened in this thread multiple times. A few post up is a prime example about a polytheistic God. I am always open to dialogue. I just ask people to back up their statements with factual evidence if that is possible. I will try and do the same.

 

[girlthatsblanco]

I dont know what you mean.

The verse i referenced is in Genesis. Before God even created Adam. Jesus didnt come til a couple thousand years later.

Sin wasnt even "created" yet so God wouldnt need to come down as a human so there was no Trinity yet.

So who was the "our" and "us" referenced in the creation story and who were the plural Gods in the first verse?

This is a good place to start that will break down what I am saying. If it still doesn't make sense after you read it, I will do my best to explain it to you.

http://www.everystudent.com/forum/trinity.html

 

[wr]

You're trying to play victim now.

I am telling you things to look up for yourself.

If you're grown enough to sign up for nt general, you're grown enough to do some research and come back with some rebuttals. Don't just start crying because you feel like we are making personal attacks or emotional attacks. I do not know you and will probably never meet you irl.

What you are trying to do is make this about you. I am trying to discuss the bible not your feelings. Grow up and refute my points so we can actually discuss something.

 

[gwap]

 

 

 

 
boris droppin knowledge......

if you just read his link you can see how translation distorts meaning

No, because the article didn't actually cite the original text, including language & context other than stating that the translation of the original text was wrong. If I actually get some time, I'll debunk the premise that the translation is wrong.

but the whole point is the fact that different english versions use different english words because the interpretation is still up to the discretion of the interpretor...

even without discussing the actual original language... if different english translations are worded differently with slightly different meaning, then that must prove that interpretation does affect meaning.

even without the examples from the link, if you speak 2 or more languages you would already know it is difficult to have a literal translation 100% of the time.

now if you are just trying to prove a specific text about a specific topic (homosexuality?) then theres more factors you can pull out to prove your view.

but overall as a rule.... tranaslation does affect meaning.. 

Can you give me an example of two or more translations that are significantly different?

...... are you joking?

the very link we are talking about has a very clear and well explained example...

here's some others i guess...

http://www.apbrown2.net/web/TranslationComparisonChart.htm

but are you really trying to search for new information, or are you just hoping there aren't any examples so your conviction stays uncontested?

 

[wr]

Kirk Franklin Blasts Creflo Dollar's 'Project G650' Campaign

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6934480?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000047

. “We don’t have a shortage of greatness, we have a shortage of character. When a pastor wants people to buy him a private plane while a missionary in Somalia bathes children with sores, that’s a shortage of character,” the Grammy Award winner wrote. “When I camouflage my ‘greeds’ to look like ‘needs,’ that’s a shortage of character.”

Franklin also mentioned the recently surfaced video that shows members of Sigma Alpha Epsilon singing a racist chat.

“When young students are comfortable enough to sing racial slurs on a bus while furthering their education to someday lead a corporation that may have minorities apply for jobs, that’s a shortage of character," he wrote. "And it’s something you can’t teach in school.”

 

[darthska]

^ STOMP!

 

[Jordan8]

This is a good place to start that will break down what I am saying. If it still doesn't make sense after you read it, I will do my best to explain it to you.

http://www.everystudent.com/forum/trinity.html

I more than understand the concept of the Holy Trinity. Do you realize that Im speaking on the very first verse in the bible?

B.C., before christ? Before the son? Before the New Testament? Before Abraham?

Genesis says Elohim (Gods), us and our. Which makes sense since it was written during a time where polytheism was more prevalent.

But you are not explaining how or why it went from Gods to God.

Just say you dont know instead of straw manning the Holy Trinity. Because if it was referencing the Holy Trinity there would be no need to translate from Gods to God and more importantly the Holy Trinity would have been mentioned in Genesis or anywhere in the Old Testament instead of only first appearing in the New testament.

 

[blastercombo]

Explain

https://carm.org/jesus-name-really-yeshua

 

[girlthatsblanco]

I more than understand the concept of the Holy Trinity. Do you realize that Im speaking on the very first verse in the bible?

B.C., before christ? Before the son? Before the New Testament? Before Abraham?

Genesis says Elohim (Gods), us and our. Which makes sense since it was written during a time where polytheism was more prevalent.

But you are not explaining how or why it went from Gods to God.

Just say you dont know instead of straw manning the Holy Trinity. Because if it was referencing the Holy Trinity there would be no need to translate from Gods to God and more importantly the Holy Trinity would have been mentioned in Genesis or anywhere in the Old Testament instead of only first appearing in the New testament.

But like many people, don't understand the Trinity. The answer to your question is in the link I posted which you obviously didn't read. So let me explain.

The Trinity is one God existing in three Persons. Understand that this is not in any way suggesting three Gods. This is a term that is used to attempt to describe the triune God—three coexistent, co-eternal Persons who make up one God.
1) There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5).

2) The Trinity consists of three Persons (Genesis 1:1, 26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8, 48:16, 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14). In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew plural noun "Elohim" is used. In Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, the plural pronoun for “us” is used. The word "Elohim" and the pronoun “us” are plural forms, definitely referring in the Hebrew language to more than two....hence the Trinity. Again three persons making up one God.

3) The members of the Trinity are distinguished one from another in various passages. In the Old Testament, “LORD” is distinguished from “Lord” (Genesis 19:24; Hosea 1:4). The LORD has a Son (Psalm 2:7, 12; Proverbs 30:2-4). The Spirit is distinguished from the “LORD” (Numbers 27:1 and from “God” (Psalm 51:10-12). God the Son is distinguished from God the Father (Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9). In the New Testament, Jesus speaks to the Father about sending a Helper, the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17). This shows that Jesus did not consider Himself to be the Father or the Holy Spirit. Consider also all the other times in the Gospels where Jesus speaks to the Father. Was He speaking to Himself? No. He spoke to another Person in the Trinity....the Father.


4) Each member of the Trinity is God. The Father is God (John 6:27; Romans 1:7; 1 Peter 1:2). The Son is God (John 1:1, 14; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8; 1 John 5:20). The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16).

Yes, B.C. means before Christ. But that is referance to his birth on earth. Christ is eternal so he has always existed. The pre-existence of Christ on earth is clearly stated in John 1:1-4: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life…" It is this Word or Logos in Greek who became incarnate in Jesus. "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us," John tells us (verse 14).

Let's go back to first verse in the Bible. You know it well so there is no reason to post it. Now look at this

Colossians 1:15-17
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Now compare that to the very first verse of the Bible. What do you see?